Boise PDS Online - BLD06-02930

Information based on query as of Wednesday, July 17, 2024.

Permit Information

Permit Number	BLD06-02930
Status	Void/No Violation
Name	MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC
Site Address	8000 S FEDERAL WAY
Project Name	MICRON SLAB AND CANOPY
Customer Number	C9589
ePlanReview	No
Description	Micron - Concrete Slab and Canopy - To construct a new 2,675 square foot, fenced, reinforced concrete slab with an 870 square foot steel canopy over a portion of the slab. This permit will also include the construction of four reinforced concrete masonry walls with a total length of 75 feet to divide the slab into four areas. This permit also includes the construction of approximately 400 lineal feet of one foot wide by one foot deep reinforced concrete utility trench. The new construction is for the storage of two silane trailers and related distribution equipment. The new concrete slab will be located approximately 90 feet north of South Wafer Way and 175 feet east of the parking lot south of Building #36. JCM

Contact Information

See Activities list for contact information

Permit Details Project Related Cases Activities Conditions Parcel Fees Valuation Documents Permit Summary Report

Show Inspection Activities Only

Description

Received

Requested

Completed

AM/PM

Disposition

Assigned To

Routing - FIRE

10/17/2006

10/26/2009

FAIL

Name:	Scott Arellano
Title:	FIRE PLAN REVIEWER
Phone:	208-608-7109

Scott Arellano

*Permit voided at request of applicant* Sam Rogers. Hazards exceed our technical expertise need outside Haz Mat Technical professional to review. Discussed Jenifer, D Hanneman and Paul Marcolina; decided Micron would pay to expedite process. Subsequent change, decided Boise City will pay; Jenifer indicated to get bids. Contacted Will Winslow, Rich Miller and Derek White (Hughes) to provide bids.

VOIDED CHANGE STATUS

2/17/2009

DONE

Name:	Barbara Stitt
Title:	PERMIT TECHNICIAN
Phone:	384-3802

Barbara Stitt

Per email from Paul Marcolina void this permit see scanned attached documents///2/17/09 BAS

BLD-Aging Inspection

1/13/2009

Name:	Jim Storey
Title:	BLD-COM/RES INSPECTOR
Phone:	794-9490

Jim Storey

pending fire.

FIRE-Final Inspection

7/21/2008

7/22/2008

7/21/2008

CANC

Name:	Forrest France
Title:	FIRE INSPECTOR
Phone:	794-1981

Forrest France

Life Safety final Phone #: ###-#### Internet Inspection Request from: Wayne Berry Inspection cancelled from web by: Wayne Berry

BLD-Aging Inspection

6/4/2008

PASS

Name:	Jim Storey
Title:	BLD-COM/RES INSPECTOR
Phone:	794-9490

Jim Storey

job on hold

BLD-Aging Inspection

2/26/2008

2/27/2008

PASS

Name:	Jim Storey
Title:	BLD-COM/RES INSPECTOR
Phone:	794-9490

Jim Storey

wip with si

BLD-Conference

12/27/2007

PART

Name:	Jim Storey
Title:	BLD-COM/RES INSPECTOR
Phone:	794-9490

Jim Storey

ernie Phone #: ###-#### need si records/ ab epoxy/washers on bolts in qustion for next insp.

Telephone call

11/13/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

(email response) to letter received 11/13/07 from Paul Marcolina. (see Doc attached). "Paul, I received your letter today and reviewed it with Dave Hanneman. Actually, your statement that we had requested a Micron PE to stamp the report of Francesco, Tamanini, and Chaffee, is not accurate. We would not expect anyone to "stamp" a research document. What we did propose in our telephone conversation with Bobbie Smith, on 10/16/07, (discussing our response to your letter dated 10/11/07) was that we would accept a stamp of approval on item #2 of your letter by a design professional, indicating their concurrence with the design proposal. Bobby agreed to discuss that with John Velikoff and see if she could get an in-house PE to stamp/sign the design alternative #2, and resubmit it to the City. We were looking at this as a design alternative request and so we asked to have Micron submit their specific alternative plan, stamped by a design professional, indicating that in his opinion the design is based on, and is in conformance with, the conclusions of the research paper published by Francesco, Tamanini, and Chaffee. That would give us a professionally recognized basis for accepting the alternative design proposal.
We are still willing to accept that approach. However, we are also willing to accept your latest proposal to relocate the valve cabinets outside, in conformance with CGA-13, and eliminate the need for a design alternative. It seems to us on the surface, that having the valve cabinets located outside would be inherently safer than having them inside.
Please give me a call to discuss this further if you wish. Otherwise, we will await the submittal of plans for either approach.
Regards, Sam

BLD-Aging Inspection

10/24/2007

Name:	Jim Storey
Title:	BLD-COM/RES INSPECTOR
Phone:	794-9490

Jim Storey

Plan Reviewer's activity

10/17/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

REviewed alternative design request submitted 10/11/07. Telecon discussion with Bobby Smith. D. Hanneman agrees to accept Item #1 but would like to have a "stamp of approval" on item #2 by a design proffessional, indicating their concurrance with the desgin proposal. Bobby agreed to discuss with John Velikoff and see if she can get an in-house PE to stamp/sign the design alternative #2, and resubmit it to the City. See Attached DOC. Will await reply from Micron before making a decision on item 2.

Additional plans submitted

10/11/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Received letter from Micron, dated 10/11/07 requesting alternative design approval of UV/IR flame detection and Ventialtion of gas boxes.

Meeting

9/5/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

meeting with Paul Marocolina, Bobbie Smith, John Velikoff, Tom Roberts, J. Gilliland, S. Rogers. Micron to resubmit a letter with further explanation of their proposed gas detection system and a copy of correspondence which they say they have from the Standard committee which indicates the committee's intent to change the standard in next revision cycle to eliminate the specific requirement for "optical" detection and allow the hydride gas analyzer system which Micron proposes to use (and which they do use in the existing gas cabinets which were installed prior to the new Silane standard). Also Micrion will provide excerpts from their referenced research reports which support their contention that the minimum venting velocity requirement is not necessary and additional explanation to support the rationale for their proposal to use a lower ventilation velocity (which they currently have in the exisitng silane distribution cabinets).

Meeting

8/3/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

At on site meeting, Paul Marcolina indicated they have not yet replied to R. Millers's latest review comments.

Issue & PRINT to be Invoiced

7/25/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Okay from Fire, to issue for construction of outdoor silane installation; while remaining issues of interior system are being resolved. Per Sam Rogers he is ok to issue this permit

Routing - FIRE

7/25/2007

PART

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Okay from Fire, to issue for construction of outdoor silane installation; while remaining issues of interior system are being resolved.

Plan assigned to (JCM)

10/11/2006

7/25/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Plan Reviewer's activity

7/23/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Received email from Rich Miller revising his conclusion 3 per our telcon 7/17/07 and providing a Piping InspectiOn form. Forwarded his revised comments and his new Piping Inspection form via email to P.D. Marcolina, with the following comments:
"Paul,
As we agreed, in our on-site meeting last Thursday, about Conclusions 1 and 3 of Rich Miller’s REV3 summary report, I discussed the points you raised with Rich and attached below is his response.
Section 3, Item 6, Flame detection: Rich pointed out that the alternative under CGA G-13, paragraph 11.2.2, allowing heat detection in lieu of optical flame detection, only applies to individual gas cylinders, which may be exposed to arc welding, artificial lighting or other stray light sources that could inadvertently trip an optical detector. Your situation does not involve gas cylinders; only enclosed distribution cabinets, which would not be subject to stray lighting effects. Your situation falls specifically under paragraph 11.2.2.2, Inside Gas Cabinets, which does not include an alternative to optical detection. Therefore, we concur with Rich’s recommendation to use optical detection per the Standard or his alternative, that Micron may hire a 3rd party technical expert who is mutually acceptable to the City, to evaluate Micron’s proposed design.
''As you will see from his emailed report below, Rich revised his recommendations on the Piping inspection procedures, now REV4. He has also provided a brief inspection form, which would be sufficient to document the important Pipe Inspection aspects for the City records. I think this is a reasonable approach and hope it will be acceptable to you. I have attached a copy of that form below.
"If Micron agrees with this modified Review, please resubmit a complete set of plans reflecting all of the above and previously negotiated agreements. It is important that a complete package of plans, including the Micron Sequence of Operations and Stainless Piping Spec be a part of this revised and complete re-submittal.
"If you want to pursue the 3rd Party Review, please contact me to discuss whom Micron would propose using.
Thanks,
Sam"

Meeting

7/19/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Discussed Rich's review comments on site with Micron. They disagree with Section 3 item 6 and conclusion comment 3. I agreed to discuss their arguments on these two issues with R Miller and let Micron know our decision.

Meeting

7/17/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

3rd review by R. Miller of Silane plans received and discussed with R. Miller.

Plan Reviewer's activity

7/17/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Forwarded Summary Conclusion comments from Rich Miller to Micron via a copy of the following email comments back to Rich:
"Rich, confirming our telcon on 7/12, I am in agreement with your latest Summary Review comments and your four Conclusions on page 9 of the in the 7/11/07 summary you sent to me (attached below).
I concur with the option you offer Micron to provide a 3rd party opinion on Section 3, Items 6 & 7, if they choose to pursue their design approach, instead of following the standards you recommend.
Please forward your full review comments to Micron.
Thanks,
Sam"

Telephone call

7/11/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

telcon with P. Marcolina on status. Expect to get report from R. Miller this afternoon; should be able to disucss it tomorrow.

Telephone call

7/10/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

I called Rich Miller regarding status of review. He has been on vacation but will complete his review tomorrow.

Plan resubmittals received

6/18/2007

Name:
Title:
Phone:

received letter of transmittal from micron, letter from micron for Sam Rogers, Rev 2 reports (18) pages, Section 15240A high purity stainless steel piping (23), mti boise plant operations, Weld Test Specification, Bulk Oxygen Plant Line Qualification, Air Circulator, Orifice calculations, Pipe-Flo Compresible 2005 ((3) 1 sheet of EP1.1, 1 sheet of M4.1, FACP,Input, and Wonderware Input sheets (9) - taken to John Menard

Plan Reviewer's activity

6/18/2007

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Only 1 set of plans resubmitted - mailed it to Rich Miller for review.

Plan resubmittals received

3/29/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Received 1 letter of transmittal,1-hazardous materials,1 condition & requirements,1 response sheet,1 calc sheet for pressure (9) copys of sheets 16 of 19, 12 of 19, 19 of 19,18 of 19,1 of 1 (3) copys of sheets A.0,C1.1,C1.1.1,C1.1.2,C1.1.3,C1.2,PP1.1.4,PPD-26-2.0,PP24.2.0,PP1.2,PP1.2.1,PP1.5,PP15.2.3.1,PP15.2.2,M15.2.2,PP-1X-2.2.1,PP-1X-2.222,M-1X-2.2.2,PP4.2,PP4.5,PP4.10,PP4.11,PP4.12,PP6.1,M2.1,E1.2,EP1.1,E1.1G,FP0.0,FP2.1.1,FP6.1,FP6.2,ET0.0,ET2.1,ET3.1,10.0,11.1,12.1,12.2,12.3,14.1,14.2,14.3,14.4,15.1,15.2,15.3,15.4,15.5,FA0.0,FA2.1.1,FA2.1.2,FA2.1.3,FA4.1,FA4.2,FA4.3,FA5.1 taken to John M. (1 set left with John and the rest taken to Sam R )

Plan Reviewer's activity

1/12/2007

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Compiled 3 bids and assisted to prepare final contract for outside review by Haz Mat specialist Rich Miller.

Plan Reviewer's activity

12/19/2006

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Mailed plans to Rich Miller for preliminary review prior to quote.

Routing - PLAN CHECK

10/12/2006

10/17/2006

PASS

Name:
Title:
Phone:

1st review completed

10/17/2006

FAIL

Name:	John Menard
Title:	PLAN REVIEWER II
Phone:	384-3811

John Menard

Application received

10/11/2006

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Pending Assignment by MYS

10/11/2006

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

10/11/2006 08:51:30 B_S - activity updated through activity BLDA166 from case BLD06-02930.

Plans ACCEPTED BY PLAN TECH

10/11/2006

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Routing - PLAN CHECK

Name:
Title:
Phone:

John Menard